Simple: you add up the verbal and math scores (leaving out the writing score) and then you add a zero on the end of the result. I.e. 52 verbal + 52 math = 104, therefore your estimated SAT score would be 1040. It's a rough estimate, and frequently it underestimates your eventual SAT score (after all, you have another year of experience ahead of you) but it's a pretty good indicator of the whole thing.
iPods can be used for more than just music. Lots of people also use them for transferring data back and forth. Imagine having in your pocket an entire backup of your hard drive, so all you have to do to recover your files is connect the device to another computer, download the files, and go on your way. It's pretty hard to find anything else quite like that.
Well, yeah, that and the stability, out-of-box compiling tools with most distributions, ready-to-use web server software with the same that actually doesn't require you to worry about security constantly, the community, and the easily-customizable nature of most any part of the software. But mostly the cost.
Not only that, but most web stat programs (Analog, awstats, webalizer) detect Opera even when you've set it to masquerade as another browser. Anyone using one of those programs will clearly see the number of Opera users that come to their web page.
That's mostly due to the fact that Microsoft's CSS style detects whether a person is using IE, Mozilla, and Opera, and gives a really odd style sheet to Opera that causes elements to be shifted off to the side. The theory has been that it was done to discredit Opera by making it look as though it was Opera's fault that the page didn't display, even though Opera was just showing the page the way Microsoft's CSS style told them to do it. If you tell Opera to report that it's MSIE, then the CSS code you get is the IE version, which doesn't have the corrupt formatting in it.
I'm pretty sure those are movie ratings. M would stand for Mature and R16 would be Restricted-16. Kinda like the US system of G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, X.
That's because when you become aware of a trademark infringement, if you don't defend against it you lose your trademark. I'm sure Google doesn't really want to go after these sites, but to make sure that Google remains their trademark and not public domain, they're required to order these types of sites to cease and desist.
If you had a daughter (maybe one whose private parts are being leered at in darkened bedrooms around the world), you might have a different idea about what consitutes free speech, and what is abuse!
That's not what COPA was designed to prevent. Pornography of that nature is most certainly illegal already. No one in their right mind would approve of that kind of pornography. On the other hand, COPA was designed to give the government leeway to overly regulate legal pornography businesses by taking over a parent's responsibility. If you can't be responsible enough to watch over your children, then you shouldn't come and complain to the government because they didn't do your job.
Legislating morality is a dangerous precedent to set, and I think that decisions regarding legal pornography should be made by adults, and the government should stay out of parenting. Don't want your kids viewing pornography? Then either put the computer in a high-traffic area in the house or having some sort of monitoring. Or, more importantly, teach your kids the proper way to use the Internet. Of course, it's much easier these days to just let kids surf the Internet at will, and that's the parent's fault. I'll say it again: it's a parent's responsibility to look out for their kids.
You know we'll be seeing commercials now saying "Use mod chips and your daughter will become pregnant and your son will run over a kid on a trike." It's the logical next step, right?
I actually tend to believe that Google's intent is, in fact, to get access to the blogs as posts are made to them. Think about it. Google's servers only crawl the web thoroughly once a month (enter the Google dance). By that time, many blog entries have traveled off the main page and into archives, where they may not see the light of day during any one specific crawl. In other words, it could conceivably be two months before Google is able to index a certain blog entry. That's way too long, and this way Google can harness the collective power of thousands of blogs to draw more people to the search engine.
First, as someone has already said, Google is privately held, so all of its investors are either employees or venture capitalists. On another note, investors tend to react positively to layoffs. That means that the company is running a tighter ship and has reduced expenses through their payroll. Investors ultimately couldn't care less about the quality of a product, all they care about is profitability.
On the page with your search results, just click on the "Groups" tab. It automatically searches Usenet groups for your search term. The reason they don't put that in the main search results is because most of the stuff on Usenet is more technical and therefore well beyond what the average searcher is looking for. However, if you know that what you want is likely on Usenet, use the groups search.
Not to mention the fact that if the program you use to play the file doesn't report the global ID back to a server, that ID is worthless. All that has to be done is take an older version of Winamp et al. and voila, no way for the creator of the media to track the ID.
No, software is licensed. If indeed these EULAs are considered invalid, then really the people who have this software are not permitted to use them at all, because they don't have a valid license to them anymore. Unfortunately, the problems are distributed to both parties.
I bought both. I got the 2-disc version so that I could watch it starting in August. I then bought the 4-disc version not because of the extras, but because of the bookends (which are very nice IMO) and also for the free ticket. I had no problem paying for both, and both see play in my DVD player still.
Shouldn't the story say July 2002? Just noticed that now...
Very tragic day in our nation's history, I never thought that I'd live to see another Challenger event.
There is no such Act. That disclaimer was specifically designed as a way for file sharing sites to look like they have some legality to them. The idea that you could prevent certain classes of vaguely-defined people (does a private investigator at home in his spare time have access to the site? apparently not, since he's part of an investigative agency) from visiting a site is ludicrous.
I probably should rephrase that statement. What I mean is that it's unlikely Microsoft would make a Starcraft 2 like we think of it. Microsoft's business model for games tends more toward MSN Gaming Zone and first-person shooters. It's unlikely Battle.net would last long, as people are converted over to MSN. It would also increase the likelihood that the PC version of Starcraft 2 would be delayed or nonexistant, and certainly not the same as if Blizzard made it themselves.
That's Vivendi:) And Blizzard doesn't trade on the stock market, being a subsidiary of Vivendi. However, I do agree with what you say, that Starcraft 2 will probably never be, just because of the horrendous finances at Vivendi and the fact that they're focusing on Warcraft more now. Add to that the fact that they may be bought by Microsoft, and Starcraft 2 is very unlikely.
Not to mention the fact that you'd better not step foot in America or any American territory/possession, because then you're on their terms. Example: Skylarov.
Yes, but the current problem is who has the money to crack those keys on the certificates. Only governments and large corporations have millions of dollars to spend on this sort of equipment. There's very little they could get out of cracking an RSA certificate for a site. What would they do with it?
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: you add up the verbal and math scores (leaving out the writing score) and then you add a zero on the end of the result. I.e. 52 verbal + 52 math = 104, therefore your estimated SAT score would be 1040. It's a rough estimate, and frequently it underestimates your eventual SAT score (after all, you have another year of experience ahead of you) but it's a pretty good indicator of the whole thing.
iPods can be used for more than just music. Lots of people also use them for transferring data back and forth. Imagine having in your pocket an entire backup of your hard drive, so all you have to do to recover your files is connect the device to another computer, download the files, and go on your way. It's pretty hard to find anything else quite like that.
Well, yeah, that and the stability, out-of-box compiling tools with most distributions, ready-to-use web server software with the same that actually doesn't require you to worry about security constantly, the community, and the easily-customizable nature of most any part of the software. But mostly the cost.
Not only that, but most web stat programs (Analog, awstats, webalizer) detect Opera even when you've set it to masquerade as another browser. Anyone using one of those programs will clearly see the number of Opera users that come to their web page.
That's mostly due to the fact that Microsoft's CSS style detects whether a person is using IE, Mozilla, and Opera, and gives a really odd style sheet to Opera that causes elements to be shifted off to the side. The theory has been that it was done to discredit Opera by making it look as though it was Opera's fault that the page didn't display, even though Opera was just showing the page the way Microsoft's CSS style told them to do it. If you tell Opera to report that it's MSIE, then the CSS code you get is the IE version, which doesn't have the corrupt formatting in it.
But some dollars are more equal than others.
I'm pretty sure those are movie ratings. M would stand for Mature and R16 would be Restricted-16. Kinda like the US system of G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, X.
That's because when you become aware of a trademark infringement, if you don't defend against it you lose your trademark. I'm sure Google doesn't really want to go after these sites, but to make sure that Google remains their trademark and not public domain, they're required to order these types of sites to cease and desist.
If you had a daughter (maybe one whose private parts are being leered at in darkened bedrooms around the world), you might have a different idea about what consitutes free speech, and what is abuse!
That's not what COPA was designed to prevent. Pornography of that nature is most certainly illegal already. No one in their right mind would approve of that kind of pornography. On the other hand, COPA was designed to give the government leeway to overly regulate legal pornography businesses by taking over a parent's responsibility. If you can't be responsible enough to watch over your children, then you shouldn't come and complain to the government because they didn't do your job.
Legislating morality is a dangerous precedent to set, and I think that decisions regarding legal pornography should be made by adults, and the government should stay out of parenting. Don't want your kids viewing pornography? Then either put the computer in a high-traffic area in the house or having some sort of monitoring. Or, more importantly, teach your kids the proper way to use the Internet. Of course, it's much easier these days to just let kids surf the Internet at will, and that's the parent's fault. I'll say it again: it's a parent's responsibility to look out for their kids.
You know we'll be seeing commercials now saying "Use mod chips and your daughter will become pregnant and your son will run over a kid on a trike." It's the logical next step, right?
I actually tend to believe that Google's intent is, in fact, to get access to the blogs as posts are made to them. Think about it. Google's servers only crawl the web thoroughly once a month (enter the Google dance). By that time, many blog entries have traveled off the main page and into archives, where they may not see the light of day during any one specific crawl. In other words, it could conceivably be two months before Google is able to index a certain blog entry. That's way too long, and this way Google can harness the collective power of thousands of blogs to draw more people to the search engine.
First, as someone has already said, Google is privately held, so all of its investors are either employees or venture capitalists. On another note, investors tend to react positively to layoffs. That means that the company is running a tighter ship and has reduced expenses through their payroll. Investors ultimately couldn't care less about the quality of a product, all they care about is profitability.
On the page with your search results, just click on the "Groups" tab. It automatically searches Usenet groups for your search term. The reason they don't put that in the main search results is because most of the stuff on Usenet is more technical and therefore well beyond what the average searcher is looking for. However, if you know that what you want is likely on Usenet, use the groups search.
Not to mention the fact that if the program you use to play the file doesn't report the global ID back to a server, that ID is worthless. All that has to be done is take an older version of Winamp et al. and voila, no way for the creator of the media to track the ID.
No, software is licensed. If indeed these EULAs are considered invalid, then really the people who have this software are not permitted to use them at all, because they don't have a valid license to them anymore. Unfortunately, the problems are distributed to both parties.
I bought both. I got the 2-disc version so that I could watch it starting in August. I then bought the 4-disc version not because of the extras, but because of the bookends (which are very nice IMO) and also for the free ticket. I had no problem paying for both, and both see play in my DVD player still.
They already tried that. It was called DivX (the Circuit City version, not the codec).
Shouldn't the story say July 2002? Just noticed that now... Very tragic day in our nation's history, I never thought that I'd live to see another Challenger event.
There is no such Act. That disclaimer was specifically designed as a way for file sharing sites to look like they have some legality to them. The idea that you could prevent certain classes of vaguely-defined people (does a private investigator at home in his spare time have access to the site? apparently not, since he's part of an investigative agency) from visiting a site is ludicrous.
I probably should rephrase that statement. What I mean is that it's unlikely Microsoft would make a Starcraft 2 like we think of it. Microsoft's business model for games tends more toward MSN Gaming Zone and first-person shooters. It's unlikely Battle.net would last long, as people are converted over to MSN. It would also increase the likelihood that the PC version of Starcraft 2 would be delayed or nonexistant, and certainly not the same as if Blizzard made it themselves.
That's Vivendi :) And Blizzard doesn't trade on the stock market, being a subsidiary of Vivendi. However, I do agree with what you say, that Starcraft 2 will probably never be, just because of the horrendous finances at Vivendi and the fact that they're focusing on Warcraft more now. Add to that the fact that they may be bought by Microsoft, and Starcraft 2 is very unlikely.
Not to mention the fact that you'd better not step foot in America or any American territory/possession, because then you're on their terms. Example: Skylarov.
Yes, but the current problem is who has the money to crack those keys on the certificates. Only governments and large corporations have millions of dollars to spend on this sort of equipment. There's very little they could get out of cracking an RSA certificate for a site. What would they do with it?
404 bytes...heh...what the irony
Indeed.